Low fuel forced Italian MD-82 to land on closed runway
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Low fuel forced Italian MD-82 to land on closed runway
DATE:03/10/08
SOURCE:Air Transport Intelligence
Low fuel forced Italian MD-82 to land on closed runway
By David Kaminski-Morrow
Italian investigators have disclosed that an aircraft on a domestic service between Milan Linate and Cagliari was forced to land on a closed runway because it burned diversion reserves during a prolonged hold.
While the Agenzia Nazionale per la Sicurezza del Volo (ANSV) does not specifically identify the incident, which has led investigators to issue a set of recommendations, the circumstances match those experienced by a Meridiana Boeing MD-82 which declared a fuel emergency on 5 May while holding to land at Cagliari.
ANSV says the aircraft, with 36 passengers on board, had been cleared for approach but the crew was subsequently instructed to execute a go-around because of the presence of birds on the runway.
The aircraft made a second attempt to approach the runway, 14L, but was again told to abort. It was then placed in a holding stack over Cagliari.
Twenty-three minutes after the first landing attempt, the crew declared a fuel emergency to air traffic controllers and requested clearance to land, despite the runway's being unavailable.
ANSV says that the aircraft had around 2,900kg of fuel on board at this point, less than the minimum level of fuel - some 3,100kg - required for diversion.
The aircraft landed 10min after the emergency declaration. Controllers opened the runway shortly afterwards.
While the aircraft's flight-data and cockpit-voice recorders had been overwritten by the time the incident was reported, four days later, ANSV says fuel levels on board the aircraft had been checked prior to departure from Milan, and the pilots had decided they "did not wish to upload extra fuel" for the flight.
It adds that a NOTAM was in place for Cagliari, valid from 1 May to 25 July, warning crews of possible delays because of birds in the vicinity of runway 14L/32R.
The aircraft's fuel levels reached their minimum for diversion about 19-20min after the first aborted approach and 3-4min after the second.
The investigators point out that the captain is responsible for verifying carriage of adequate fuel, including reserves for diversion and a final reserve.
ANSV says the jet should have been able to divert to an alternative airport, Olbia, without having to declare an emergency and land on a closed runway. It has issued four recommendations to the Italian civil aviation administration, urging better fuel-planning
SOURCE:Air Transport Intelligence
Low fuel forced Italian MD-82 to land on closed runway
By David Kaminski-Morrow
Italian investigators have disclosed that an aircraft on a domestic service between Milan Linate and Cagliari was forced to land on a closed runway because it burned diversion reserves during a prolonged hold.
While the Agenzia Nazionale per la Sicurezza del Volo (ANSV) does not specifically identify the incident, which has led investigators to issue a set of recommendations, the circumstances match those experienced by a Meridiana Boeing MD-82 which declared a fuel emergency on 5 May while holding to land at Cagliari.
ANSV says the aircraft, with 36 passengers on board, had been cleared for approach but the crew was subsequently instructed to execute a go-around because of the presence of birds on the runway.
The aircraft made a second attempt to approach the runway, 14L, but was again told to abort. It was then placed in a holding stack over Cagliari.
Twenty-three minutes after the first landing attempt, the crew declared a fuel emergency to air traffic controllers and requested clearance to land, despite the runway's being unavailable.
ANSV says that the aircraft had around 2,900kg of fuel on board at this point, less than the minimum level of fuel - some 3,100kg - required for diversion.
The aircraft landed 10min after the emergency declaration. Controllers opened the runway shortly afterwards.
While the aircraft's flight-data and cockpit-voice recorders had been overwritten by the time the incident was reported, four days later, ANSV says fuel levels on board the aircraft had been checked prior to departure from Milan, and the pilots had decided they "did not wish to upload extra fuel" for the flight.
It adds that a NOTAM was in place for Cagliari, valid from 1 May to 25 July, warning crews of possible delays because of birds in the vicinity of runway 14L/32R.
The aircraft's fuel levels reached their minimum for diversion about 19-20min after the first aborted approach and 3-4min after the second.
The investigators point out that the captain is responsible for verifying carriage of adequate fuel, including reserves for diversion and a final reserve.
ANSV says the jet should have been able to divert to an alternative airport, Olbia, without having to declare an emergency and land on a closed runway. It has issued four recommendations to the Italian civil aviation administration, urging better fuel-planning
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: on my way
Posts: 1,648
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cagliari is a well known "nightmare airport" because of its extremely poor ATC.
You get there and ATC won't tell you what approach to expect,afterwards it's not uncommon to have 2 or 3 different approach clearencies or runway changes depending on outbound traffic (which has precedence on landing aircraft???) , negligeable wind changes or military traffic operating in a closeby airport.
On top of everything italian ATCO's are not allowing pilots to shoot visual approaches (because of some pathetic union action against a judicial settlement in which a controller was convicted) having them flying the full instrument procedures even with 10.000 miles visibility and zero traffic around the field unless an emergency situation arises as in the above event.
The above incident is just another example of the very poor and unsafe approach the italian ATCO's are showing towards their job.
If the authorities are concentrating on "urging better fuel policies" they are missing the point: pilots base their planning decisions on standard procedures applied across the globe but can't really cope with a place where most things happen outside any internationnally recognised standard.
You get there and ATC won't tell you what approach to expect,afterwards it's not uncommon to have 2 or 3 different approach clearencies or runway changes depending on outbound traffic (which has precedence on landing aircraft???) , negligeable wind changes or military traffic operating in a closeby airport.
On top of everything italian ATCO's are not allowing pilots to shoot visual approaches (because of some pathetic union action against a judicial settlement in which a controller was convicted) having them flying the full instrument procedures even with 10.000 miles visibility and zero traffic around the field unless an emergency situation arises as in the above event.
The above incident is just another example of the very poor and unsafe approach the italian ATCO's are showing towards their job.
If the authorities are concentrating on "urging better fuel policies" they are missing the point: pilots base their planning decisions on standard procedures applied across the globe but can't really cope with a place where most things happen outside any internationnally recognised standard.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: ? ? ?
Posts: 2,281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ANSV says that the aircraft had around 2,900kg of fuel on board at this point, less than the minimum level of fuel - some 3,100kg - required for diversion.
See also this thread.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely, Henry - whether one chooses to 'exercise' those paragraphs is a moot point, but assuming, as you say, reasonable weather it sounds perfectly 'correct' IAW JarOps, and indeed to have 2900kg 23 mins after planned landing says he/she was quite prudent. However, the Decci "The range she is a klo-zed" bug is obviously still prevalent there and bit him
.
Subsequent actions in landing quite correct and one would have hoped ATC would have made the runway available at the 'MAYDAY/PAN' point
.Subsequent actions in landing quite correct and one would have hoped ATC would have made the runway available at the 'MAYDAY/PAN' point
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: netherlands
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Judging from the information IN this thread, they reached their diversion fuel, 3100 kgs, some 20 minutes after the first go-around. That means they probably departed on this flight with around 20 minutes of extra fuel. For normal weather conditions this seem perfectly ok to me. For reasons not attributable to them, they had to make two go-arounds. By this time they were committed to the airport and rightly so, imho, used their emergency authority to land.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: In a nice house
Posts: 981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm.... I understand the problems with the ATC this day but surely the brief before the 2nd approach should have been "in the event of a go-around this time we will divert to our alternate"?????
In the airline I work for we do maximum 2 approaches and then divert (unless exceptional reasons not to). Did they declare a mayday? Or a "fuel emergency" (which is legally not recognised in Europe). Did they make it clear that in the even of a go-around from the 2nd approach they would have to divert?
Yes, sounds like ATC/ airport authorities were not helping here, but surely even if you don't agree with the politics you should bide by the legalities.
In the airline I work for we do maximum 2 approaches and then divert (unless exceptional reasons not to). Did they declare a mayday? Or a "fuel emergency" (which is legally not recognised in Europe). Did they make it clear that in the even of a go-around from the 2nd approach they would have to divert?
Yes, sounds like ATC/ airport authorities were not helping here, but surely even if you don't agree with the politics you should bide by the legalities.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
go elsewhere before the tanks are below minimum divert fuel
the even of a go-around from the 2nd approach they would have to divert?
We do not (as usual
) know enough about the 'events' - eg were they 'go-rounds' or just denial of approach permission, what the weather was at dest and any alternate, what ATC were telling them etc etc - to make sensible analysis or criticism, do we?Once again the armchair jury rears its head on PPrune.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we're getting a little over excited... 
The runway had some seagulls on it. Which seemed enough for ATC to tell it to GA... OK... but enough's enough, on the 3rd go they said we land, seagulls or no seagulls. Aim achieved. What's the worst that could happen? A few dents and a few dead seagulls...
What purpose would diverting do? Arrive at maybe a less suitable / smaller / worse weather airfield on Min Reserves? And god forbid a seagull or 2 decided to sit on the runway there
~3000Kgs sounds a lot of fuel? I suspect (?) the 3100Kgs was to retain Div Fuel? And pure 30mins Reserve on an MD-82 is? Given on an A320 it can be less than 1000Kgs...
As BOAC points out, that particular airfield has memories for many of us with random strange ATC procedures that are best treated with a certain degree of humour
NoD
The runway had some seagulls on it. Which seemed enough for ATC to tell it to GA... OK... but enough's enough, on the 3rd go they said we land, seagulls or no seagulls. Aim achieved. What's the worst that could happen? A few dents and a few dead seagulls...
What purpose would diverting do? Arrive at maybe a less suitable / smaller / worse weather airfield on Min Reserves? And god forbid a seagull or 2 decided to sit on the runway there
~3000Kgs sounds a lot of fuel? I suspect (?) the 3100Kgs was to retain Div Fuel? And pure 30mins Reserve on an MD-82 is? Given on an A320 it can be less than 1000Kgs...
As BOAC points out, that particular airfield has memories for many of us with random strange ATC procedures that are best treated with a certain degree of humour
NoD
Guest
Posts: n/a
"The investigators point out that the captain is responsible for verifying carriage of adequate fuel, including reserves for diversion and a final reserve."
Some food for thought for the "minimum fuel brigade". Bet the company had the same advice for the poor buggers!
Some food for thought for the "minimum fuel brigade". Bet the company had the same advice for the poor buggers!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hesitate to point this out but the RSPB wants Herring gulls (as seen at the seaside and on rubish tips) to be put on it's red endangered species list. I believe currently it's on the amber list.
BBC NEWS | Magazine | The awk, awk, awk-ward squad
If that were to happen "local authorities would be required to draw up a 'Biodiversity Action Plan' to protect gulls". In which case landing and ingesting a few, when you could divert, might cause a spot of bother.
BBC NEWS | Magazine | The awk, awk, awk-ward squad
If that were to happen "local authorities would be required to draw up a 'Biodiversity Action Plan' to protect gulls". In which case landing and ingesting a few, when you could divert, might cause a spot of bother.
Paxing All Over The World
Non pilot speaking.
The point that had me exclaiming out loud was:-
Whhhaaaaattttt??????
Surely, there would have been alarm bells all over the place and everyone filling in forms for 24 hours after such an event???
The point that had me exclaiming out loud was:-
While the aircraft's flight-data and cockpit-voice recorders had been overwritten by the time the incident was reported, four days later
Surely, there would have been alarm bells all over the place and everyone filling in forms for 24 hours after such an event???
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely, there would have been alarm bells all over the place and everyone filling in forms for 24 hours after such an event???
It probabaly needed an MOR equivalent. Who knows where the 4 days went, but if the Flt Crew were on a busy day, and/or their procedures needed it filed at base, might be a day or so. By the time the MOR then got FAXed to a data processing house in India (as our airline does), entered into a Database, then a Manager back in the UK happens to review it (god forbid not at a weekend or Bank Holiday), and decides it warrants passing to the CAA equivalent... 4 days is quite easy.
I really cannot see this "event" as having any true safety implications - it seemed to land on a perfectly servicable piece of concrete, with quite a lot of fuel, probably on a nice day etc., with a perfectly serviceable aircraft. It will serve as an interesting "exercise" / training point about diversions, 3 GAs, "committing" etc.
Bear in mind, do we 100% know, that in pilot terms (not newspaper terms) it really did 2 "Go Arounds" i.e. full power, nose well high, or maybe had to discontinue 2 approachs, say above 1000'? The 3 GAs rule, I would guess, is more directed to limiting vis / cloudbase / crosswind / windshear and the inability of the aircraft / crew to continue the approach, rather than some random ATC policy written by the RSPB
(Our rules are similar to those above - 3rd approach not to be done unless the circs really have changed. We have also been nicked by the CAA/AAIB for a far more serious engineering indicent where the paperwork trail let the aircraft fly for a large number of sectors [6 days!] prior grounding / investigation - despite the MOR being filed correctly / immediately by the crew).
NoD
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm pretty sure these 'rules' are a mixture of 'history' and commonsense,
As NoD says, if you have flown 2 'full-blooded' g/as for wind/cloud/vis or whatever that stops you seeing the runway or landing on it, then:-
1) Why the *** are you trying again? Has anything really changed since the last time?
2) Do you think your pax are enjoying it?
3) Is there really any point?
Nothing in my book to stop me being cleared twice for an approach and having ATC cancel the clearance for some reason, birds, tech etc so I can continue gently around the pattern, and my having 'another go' if the reasons are right.
As NoD says, if you have flown 2 'full-blooded' g/as for wind/cloud/vis or whatever that stops you seeing the runway or landing on it, then:-
1) Why the *** are you trying again? Has anything really changed since the last time?
2) Do you think your pax are enjoying it?
3) Is there really any point?
Nothing in my book to stop me being cleared twice for an approach and having ATC cancel the clearance for some reason, birds, tech etc so I can continue gently around the pattern, and my having 'another go' if the reasons are right.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3rd Approach "rule"
Can we just expand/clarify what we all mean by this terminology. In my experience of various companies, this only applies to weather related Go Arounds, i.e lack of visual reference at DH/MDA or wind out of limits. I suspect those that have quoted their company manual have omitted the important caveat relating to weather. See current manual extract from one UK company. And of course the reason is to stop pilots "pushing" their luck, I believe its that simple.
e.g
Multiple Approaches
Except in an emergency, or when there has been a significant change
in reported weather conditions, no more than two successive
approaches to an aerodrome may be carried out where both
approaches have resulted in go-around due to weather.
e.g
Multiple Approaches
Except in an emergency, or when there has been a significant change
in reported weather conditions, no more than two successive
approaches to an aerodrome may be carried out where both
approaches have resulted in go-around due to weather.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Planet Ix
Posts: 804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing changes... as BOAC says " the range she -a -clos-ed - you go-a 'ome". Standard operations, and the crew would have known it.
Seems like they did the right thing to me, and probably landed well above legal minimum fuel. Hence the delay to report the "standard" problem. What's the fuss?
Seems like they did the right thing to me, and probably landed well above legal minimum fuel. Hence the delay to report the "standard" problem. What's the fuss?